Abstract
All transient test interpretation methods rely on or utilize diagnostic plots for the identification of wellbore or fracture storage distortion, flow regimes, and other parameters (e.g., minimum horizontal stress). Although all "test" interpretations of interest are transient test data (i.e., those involving an "event"), the associated diagnostic plots are not interchangeable between such tests. The objective of this work is to clearly define the appropriate diagnostic plot(s) for each type of transient test.
The work applies the appropriate transient test theory to demonstrate the applicability of each diagnostic plot along with clearly defining the characteristic features that make a given plot "diagnostic." For pressure transient testing, the material is largely a review, but for rate transient tests and diagnostic fracture-injection/falloff tests, new ideas are introduced and documented to justify appropriate diagnostic plots. Data examples are provided for illustration and application.
In general, pressure transient test diagnostic plots are not misused, but the same cannot be said for diagnostic fracture-injection/falloff tests (or DFITs) where it is common to ascribe flow regimes and/or draw other erroneous conclusions based on observations from an inappropriately constructed or interpretated diagnostic plot. The examples provided illustrate both the correct diagnostic plot and interpretations, but also illustrate how data can be easily misinterpreted in common practice.
System Identification of Alfred Zampa Memorial Bridge Using Dynamic Field Test Data
